In 2011, archaeologists discovered the remains of a 5th-century synagogue in the ancient Galilean town of Ḥuqoq. They have since been slowly uncovering its elaborate mosaics, which include a three-tiered illustration of a battle (complete with elephants) and what seems to be a Greek king meeting with a Jewish religious leader. Experts have offered competing interpretations of what is being depicted, as A.R. Williams writes:

The excavation’s director, Jodi Magness, . . . believes the leader of the army is none other than Alexander the Great himself. His meeting with the high priest of Jerusalem . . . was a piece of [legend] that would have been very familiar to the residents of ancient Ḥuqoq. . . .

Magness believes the mosaic should be read from bottom to top. In her view, the lowest tier, or register, depicts one of the many battles that Alexander the Great fought as he expanded his empire into the eastern Mediterranean. . . .

[But the art historian Karen] Britt and Ra’anan Boustan, a UCLA historian of religion who’s also a member of the excavation team, . . . interpret the mosaic as the depiction of a Seleucid attack on Jerusalem led by King Antiochus VII in 132 BCE.

Like Magness, Britt and Boustan read the mosaic from bottom to top. But in their interpretation, the lowest register depicts a battle in which Seleucid soldiers as well as an elephant and a bull have been killed by spears. The fighting took place outside Jerusalem proper, and the city’s Judean defenders hurled the spears at the invading army from the top of the city walls. . . . In this interpretation, the Judean leader is a high priest named John Hyrcanus I [a nephew and successor of Judah the Maccabee].

In the top register, the two leaders . . . conclude negotiations for a truce in the company of their respective troops.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.